http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5774:sri-lanka-battles-human-rights-campaigners&catid=80:politics&Itemid=120

Thanks!

Unlike many of the critics of Sri Lanka’s allegedly slow progress on the reconciliation path, Mr Paisley has hands-own experience of the real difficulties of leading his own community successfully down that path. For that reason alone his words should be studied with great care:

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1066/the_un_is_making_lasting_peace_in_sri_lanka_less_likely

In that resolution there were 12 points made, which included “[The human rights council] Urges the Government of Sri Lanka to continue strengthening its activities to ensure that there is no discrimination against ethnic minorities in the enjoyment of the full range of human rights” and “[The human rights council] Further welcomes the visit to Sri Lanka of the Secretary-General at the invitation of the President of Sri Lanka, and endorses the joint communiqué issued at the conclusion of the visit and the understandings contained therein”. This latter point refers to the statement issued by the UN SG Ban Ki Moon and President Rajapakshe in May 2009 (http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2009/sg2151.doc.htm), which ends with:

“The Secretary-General underlined the importance of an accountability process for addressing violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. The Government will take measures to address those grievances.”

The government has used the argument that there has been insufficient time to implement the LLRC recommendations since the report was only produced for the end of 2011. But the government *has* had 3 years to follow up on its commitments made in May 2009. However, by not being proactive and taking ownership of the agenda on accountability and reconciliation the government is stuck with using bluster, denial and arguments about procedure. As an aside, one of the points of order made by the Sri Lankan delegation in 2012 was that country-specific resolutions set a dangerous precedent. But wasn’t the 2009 resolution adopted by the council also a country specific resolution?

Finally, could someone offer an opinion on why Sri Lanka didn’t adopt the 2009 “winning” strategy and offer a draft resolution of their own, or work with the USA to take joint-ownership of the proposed resolution? This would have prevented the pro-LTTE groups from claiming victory and allowed the government to have more control over the country’s destiny.

They are an impediment to liberal democracy and there is a credible argument that their actions undermine, sri lankan progress, international law and further everyday they remain free, progress on international standards of human rights is stifled.

The Ruling Regime even don’t want to implement recommendations by its own LLRC commission.

It seems to me that LLRC was there to hoodwink the gullible World again. But, fortunately, World communities smartened up and they now know who the real devil is..

Rajapaksa is now loosing the support worldwide because of his wicked politics, crooked behavior,dishonesty, lack of principles, lack of vision, lack of good faith, double face, twisted tongue and every bad behavior one can attribute to a rogue government

UNHRC membership is on regional basis to begin with, not on the basis of how the members practise human rights.

Most intergovernmental activities are political – governments support each other for their gains – trade, votes for positions, etc.

If only their choices are made on the equal application of human rights and justice for all …… ……….

Countries in Southern hemisphere / NAM countries vote together. Most of them are human rights violators and have to support each other.

Thailand wants Sri Lanka’s vote for next UNHRC election:
http://www.mfa.go.th/web/2642.php?id=42264

Dr.Rotnenasingam.
Don’t you know this is exactly what Mahinda Chindanaya is saying. Not in poetry though. I thought you were reading it before when you were on call to him.

“The Council was set up by the General Assembly because its predecessor the Human Rights Commission had become excessively politicized. Therefore the Council was expected to be a mechanism that would consider every case on its merits—that is the opposite of what is happening today.

Today what is happening is that the voting pattern in the UNHRC is determined by a series of strategic political alliances, rather than an evaluation of the issues relating to a particular matter. There are 11 countries from Western Europe in the Council, out of 47; we had the strange and interesting experience in Geneva that some of these members told me and the delegation that they do not agree with what is being done—they believed that it is important that Sri Lanka be given the time and space to implement the recommendations of the LLRC report.

However they stated that despite their personal disagreement, they would nevertheless vote for the resolution because each individual country does not have a say in how they vote, that decision is taken by Brussels. These countries told us that “we don’t break ranks, except on Palestine, we vote as a bloc”. Therefore all 11 votes go together conscience has no role to play, whatever their feelings may be they have to vote in a particular manner—this contravenes the very purpose of the Council.

We find that to be deeply disturbing; it is like playing a cricket match with one side starting at a 100 runs and the other starting at zero. Out of 47 people 11 have already made up their minds; you can talk to them and convince them of your position but it will make no difference to the manner in which they vote. Then there are eight countries from Latin America and besides Ecuador and Cuba the others vote with the US. This is a serious problem because the Council is now voting in blocs.”

http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/5060

Thanks!

I am so sad that intellectuals like Dayan, Rajiv etc have now become the tired mouth piece of the Sri Lankan regime.

They are afraid to bite the hands the feed their mouth.